Terry Morgan 59 Reissue

Moltisanti

i read somewhere once that it wasn't the most forgiving to play, but i have the feeling Gary Moore could have played anything and made it sound good

mburekenge

I vaguely remember an interview with Greeny where he said he was jealous of Captons beano burst, as it played so much better than his.

ourmaninthenorth

FelineGuitars said:

BigMonka said:

FelineGuitars said:

stuagu said:

Im a bit if traditionalist but man thats a damn fine looking blue guitar 

Owned by someone on this fine forum...

The other guitar is Peter Green/Gary Moore 's before it went off to Kirk Hammett

Great picture Jonathan, how did you get your hands on probably one of the most famous guitars? Did you do any work on it?

Phil Harris who was looking after the guitar till it sold to Kirk is local to me and came in with it as he was looking for a set of non-locking Sperzel tuners that match the ones on Gary's guitar for an article he was prepping for Guitar and Bass magazine, and we had some that may have been a good match.
So we spent a nice afternoon with Phil and the guitar and got to take some pics of her.

An amazing number of pour customers have expressed regret that they didn't come in to us on the same day.

For the sake of accuracy, Phil Harris did not sell Greeny to Kirk. His custodian duties were ended by the owners, the guitar and it's subsequent sale to Kirk was dealt with by another UK dealer. 

I had this guitar plugged in for a couple of hours with said dealer....the greatest guitar experience of my life, I thought it felt and played just fine. 

mburekenge

@ourmaninthenorth you lucky bugger! Wow!

ourmaninthenorth

mburekenge said:

@ourmaninthenorth you lucky bugger! Wow!

Too right. I've got tons of pictures I could post, but I'm not going to 'cos I'm smiling on all of them, and I don't want to give you lads the impression I was enjoying myself in any shape or form...Hee hee...

guitars4you

mburekenge said:

I vaguely remember an interview with Greeny where he said he was jealous of Captons beano burst, as it played so much better than his.

Now we know where it went to then - Joe Bonamassa hinted that he knew who acquired it - PG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mburekenge

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/classic-interview-peter-green-1998-520845

stuagu

guitars4you said:

stuagu said:

andyoz said:

Haven't read all of this but I'd buy one in a shot if it was better than what Gibson can reproduce themselves.

I assume it's not a Braz board then?

Its all the right woods of the right age, so brazilian boards are present and correct .  

Andy - are you asking about all TM 59's or mine specifically - I can confirm that mine has a Brz rosewood fingerboard and South American mahogany body/neck - 2/3 others I have seen in the past are likewise - Can't account for that as an overview but suspect it is the case otherwise it loses instantly its USP and/or mjo - maybe other TM owners can chip in

I would think that They would all be the correct woods unless somebody was to specify otherwise ( why would anyone? ) or until the wood supply runs out and no more can be sourced.

mudslide73

It's interesting that Terry resides in the Midlands but remains a shadowy figure. I could be but a few miles from his 'Burst cave

IvisonGuitars

mudslide73 said:

It's interesting that Terry resides in the Midlands but remains a shadowy figure. I could be but a few miles from his 'Burst cave

How do we know you're not him @mudslide73?? Your IP address might lead us right TO the 'Burst Cave.....??

Bridgehouse

miserneil said:

mudslide73 said:

It's interesting that Terry resides in the Midlands but remains a shadowy figure. I could be but a few miles from his 'Burst cave

How do we know you're not him @mudslide73?? Your IP address might lead us right TO the 'Burst Cave.....??

Anyone else think 'burst cave' sounds like a really bad medical condition?

thebreeze

Looked at the title.  Looked at the amount of pages written.  Mrsthebreeze out for the evening.........  So I made my sandwiches, brought through the flask and settled into my favourite armchair.

Interesting.  

I wonder if Gibson would be that concerned about whether people were ripping off £250,000 vintage guitars?  In some ways that's really a problem for the punter.  Wouldn't they be more concerned about counterfeit guitars that tried to tap into the current lines and therefore their income streams?  

FWIW I don't think any replica/fake etc should try and pass itself off as the real thing though.

Bucket

Part of me thinks that if it proves to be a concern for Gibson, they should start by trying to make their own vintage reissues better and more accurate. I hear that these guitars, and other clones like them, are actually the closest you'll get to a real 50s Les Paul.

While it's illegal and shouldn't really be going on, the volume is so small that I somehow doubt it'll be a serious competitor to the Gibson Custom Shop. With that said, if I could afford one of these clones, personally I'd probably buy one over a "real" Gibson... but for every one person with my opinion, there are probably another ten who'd just buy a Gibson to spare themselves the hassle. R8s and R9s are usually still REALLY good, obviously.

I am also aware that my position may be seen as hypocritical given my dislike of the numerous companies that copy the Blackmachine design, but the situation isn't really the same. That smacks of larger companies preying on an innovative and very small-volume builder for obvious commercial gain, and hammering out a steady stream of not-very-special guitars that miss the point. This is one man on his own, building painstaking replicas with great care and love, one at a time, to a standard not available anywhere outside an original Les Paul - which is out of reach to almost everyone. And it probably doesn't have the faintest effect on Gibson's sales figures.

RaymondLin

The line isn't "small quantities", can you imagine down the line someone spent £5k on this thinking it is a Gibson R9?  That guy, although has a good guitar and in a way....there is legal precedents to show after a while, if he is happy....then that's that.. however, it does make the guitar a lie.

Hence the law is there to protect the consumer and why all counterfeit goods are to be destroyed.  It is both to protect the original copyright holder and the consumer.

On a guitar level, I do appreciate they are good guitars, very good guitars.  The question however is a psychological one, not a physical one.

The question is the drive of the consumer WANTING that Gibson logo, because deep down they want to own a piece of history, or pretend to be, like getting a R9 pretending you got a real Burst.  Both are not true but on the surface, it looks like it.   Secondly, what drives the builder NOT putting his own name on it?  One argues that is the need of the consumer wanting the logo on the headstock that drive the builder putting it on there.

However, there are plenty of good boutique builders making their own guitars with their own logo and headstock that command a good price.  Palir for example is a recent one, they started making noting more than a Tele and Strat copy with their own logo slapped on it.  But they don't pretend to be Fender.

As an artist, I want my work to be my work, and not give others the credit for my work.

RaymondLin

The line isn't "small quantities", can you imagine down the line someone spent £5k on this thinking it is a Gibson R9?  That guy, although has a good guitar and in a way....there is legal precedents to show after a while, if he is happy....then that's that.. however, it does make the guitar a lie.

Hence the law is there to protect the consumer and why all counterfeit goods are to be destroyed.  It is both to protect the original copyright holder and the consumer.

On a guitar level, I do appreciate they are good guitars, very good guitars.  The question however is a psychological one, not a physical one.

The question is the drive of the consumer WANTING that Gibson logo, because deep down they want to own a piece of history, or pretend to be, like getting a R9 pretending you got a real Burst.  Both are not true but on the surface, it looks like it.   Secondly, what drives the builder NOT putting his own name on it?  One argues that is the need of the consumer wanting the logo on the headstock that drive the builder putting it on there.

However, there are plenty of good boutique builders making their own guitars with their own logo and headstock that command a good price.  Palir for example is a recent one, they started making noting more than a Tele and Strat copy with their own logo slapped on it.  But they don't pretend to be Fender.

As an artist, I want my work to be my work, and not give others the credit for my work.

Danielsguitars

If you picked up a hand made replica you'd know it's not a new gibson 

Doesn't feel or look like one, never mind that they're faded the old fashioned way with cherry under the pickguard etc

Lodious

The relicing on that sunburst one posted above makes it pretty clear it's not an old Gibson either. I have never, ever, ever seen a vintage guitar with all the nitro worn off the back of the neck, but I've seen squillions of relics where the builder has thought it might look great when he's got his wire wool out.

To me, it looks totally fake, and if Terry is going to all the trouble of 'leaving the cherry under the pickguard', he should learn when to stop it with the sandpaper. 

I honestly don't think this type of aging makes it look like a timeless replica, it makes it look like a guitar that been reliced in the early 2000's, when people thought this kind of relicing looked good.

In 20 years time, it will date like gated reverb and frostwash jeans, and people will look back and think "how did anybody think that made a guitar look vintage?"

capo4th

Lodious said:

The relicing on that sunburst one posted above makes it pretty clear it's not an old Gibson either. I have never, ever, ever seen a vintage guitar with all the nitro worn off the back of the neck, but I've seen squillions of relics where the builder has thought it might look great when he's got his wire wool out.

To me, it looks totally fake, and if Terry is going to all the trouble of 'leaving the cherry under the pickguard', he should learn when to stop it with the sandpaper. 

I honestly don't think this type of aging makes it look like a timeless replica, it makes it look like a guitar that been reliced in the early 2000's, when people thought this kind of relicing looked good.

In 20 years time, it will date like gated reverb and frostwash jeans, and people will look back and think "how did anybody think that made a guitar look vintage?"

They are exact replicas of genuine old / relic / used Gibson guitars.

The thread that keeps on giving......

stuagu

Lodious said:

The relicing on that sunburst one posted above makes it pretty clear it's not an old Gibson either. I have never, ever, ever seen a vintage guitar with all the nitro worn off the back of the neck, but I've seen squillions of relics where the builder has thought it might look great when he's got his wire wool out.

To me, it looks totally fake, and if Terry is going to all the trouble of 'leaving the cherry under the pickguard', he should learn when to stop it with the sandpaper. 

I honestly don't think this type of aging makes it look like a timeless replica, it makes it look like a guitar that been reliced in the early 2000's, when people thought this kind of relicing looked good.

In 20 years time, it will date like gated reverb and frostwash jeans, and people will look back and think "how did anybody think that made a guitar look vintage?"

Iv seen some that look eactly lie that. You specify what level of aging you want, from the fretboard, to the armrest wear to the back of the neck. From gigged to hell and back to been under the bed for 60+ years.
its not done with sandpaper. 

skaguitar

RaymondLin said:

The line isn't "small quantities", can you imagine down the line someone spent £5k on this thinking it is a Gibson R9?  That guy, although has a good guitar and in a way....there is legal precedents to show after a while, if he is happy....then that's that.. however, it does make the guitar a lie.

Hence the law is there to protect the consumer and why all counterfeit goods are to be destroyed.  It is both to protect the original copyright holder and the consumer.

On a guitar level, I do appreciate they are good guitars, very good guitars.  The question however is a psychological one, not a physical one.

The question is the drive of the consumer WANTING that Gibson logo, because deep down they want to own a piece of history, or pretend to be, like getting a R9 pretending you got a real Burst.  Both are not true but on the surface, it looks like it.   Secondly, what drives the builder NOT putting his own name on it?  One argues that is the need of the consumer wanting the logo on the headstock that drive the builder putting it on there.

However, there are plenty of good boutique builders making their own guitars with their own logo and headstock that command a good price.  Palir for example is a recent one, they started making noting more than a Tele and Strat copy with their own logo slapped on it.  But they don't pretend to be Fender.

As an artist, I want my work to be my work, and not give others the credit for my work.

by getting an R9 you are getting a real burst surely....just not one from 1959..?